Let's not get too sarcastic until it's been evaluated. It's a brand new product and worth a careful look as to whether or not it performs roughly according to what is claimed for it. The name obviously matters for marketing, but for substance, as you know, we need to do some real work with it.

Let's not get too sarcastic until it's been evaluated. It's a brand new product and worth a careful look as to whether or not it performs roughly according to what is claimed for it. The name obviously matters for marketing, but for substance, as you know, we need to do some real work with it.

I'll be eagerly waiting for a sample roll to test it.

As well as for another highly rumored paper, Ilford Galerie Prestige Gold Diamond Square - optimized for super-quadratic prints from your trusty 501CM, or Instagram

On the Photokina it was shown too and the print was fine and so were the prints on Gold Fiber Silk.

It was not included in the Ilford Galerie Prestige Sample Book that I brought back from the show so it is not yet added to the Ilford measurements in SpectrumViz. What intrigues me though is the web information, it says high Dmax and low Dmin, something I would expect in this case. But at the View Product tab the paper white Lab values say 95.5 1.6 -3.7 which is less than the 97.0 -0.5 0.2 of Gold Fibre Silk and equal to the Ilford RC qualities. There is a difference in weight though, the mono is lighter but all the papers seem to be measured on a white board as the weight does not influence the L value much in the other papers despite their different weights. So the main difference I see is some use of OBA that is not present in GFS and possibly a higher Dmax.

What I also found confusing is a Gold Cotton Smooth sample in the sample book that is not smooth but textured. The web page descriptions do not make it clear either. I guess something went wrong in the sample book production.

Thank you for your comments and for your positive feedback on the Gold Mono Silk prints you saw at photokina. I hope you don’t mind me clarifying some of the points you raised, in particular the comparison between Gold Fibre Silk and the new Gold Mono Silk.

Firstly, ILFORD developed the Gold Fibre Silk with the goal of enabling photographers to reproduce the look of a traditional color photograph. Importantly, the paper features a barium sulphate layer, which produces a wide tonal range and colour gamut as well as enhanced image clarity. The traditional photo feel is enhanced by the fibre base, warm base tint and the fact that it’s a heavyweight paper.

With the new Gold Mono Silk we wanted to complement the range by offering a product developed especially for black and white printing. The paper has a very obvious difference in base tint compared to the Gold Fibre Silk, as we’ve given it a cooler white point using optical brighteners. The idea behind the cooler white tint, as well as the fibre base, is to replicate the qualities that photographers most appreciated about silver halide black and white papers. The results will differ depending on the inks used however, in general terms, when used with dye-based printers, Gold Mono Silk offers a much higher Dmax than Gold Fibre Silk, and also gives the same high Dmax as Gold Fiber Silk on pigment printers. Gold Fibre Silk is recommended for best use with pigment printers only. So overall we hope that the introduction of Gold Mono Silk provides a greater choice for photographers looking to recreate the look of a traditional photograph.

Thanks again for your interest. Please let us know if you would like clarification on any further technical details, and in the meantime we hope that you enjoy the results when printing with the new products. We’re making sure that the Luminous Landscape team receive samples for testing, so hopefully you’ll see the results of that here on the site.

Firstly, ILFORD developed the Gold Fibre Silk with the goal of enabling photographers to reproduce the look of a traditional color photograph. Importantly, the paper features a barium sulphate layer, which produces a wide tonal range and colour gamut as well as enhanced image clarity. The traditional photo feel is enhanced by the fibre base, warm base tint and the fact that it’s a heavyweight paper.

With the new Gold Mono Silk we wanted to complement the range by offering a product developed especially for black and white printing. The paper has a very obvious difference in base tint compared to the Gold Fibre Silk, as we’ve given it a cooler white point using optical brighteners. The idea behind the cooler white tint, as well as the fibre base, is to replicate the qualities that photographers most appreciated about silver halide black and white papers. The results will differ depending on the inks used however, in general terms, when used with dye-based printers, Gold Mono Silk offers a much higher Dmax than Gold Fibre Silk, and also gives the same high Dmax as Gold Fiber Silk on pigment printers. Gold Fibre Silk is recommended for best use with pigment printers only. So overall we hope that the introduction of Gold Mono Silk provides a greater choice for photographers looking to recreate the look of a traditional photograph.

Thanks again for your interest. Please let us know if you would like clarification on any further technical details, and in the meantime we hope that you enjoy the results when printing with the new products. We’re making sure that the Luminous Landscape team receive samples for testing, so hopefully you’ll see the results of that here on the site.

Whether it cuts any wood (straight translation of a Dutch saying) is another matter. The cooler white point I dig, the lower weight is a choice and the rest seems vague with the dye ink references. Respectable photographers/print shops will not use dye ink, the more if the print should have a longevity that resembles that of silver halide B&W prints. Both papers are not of the swellable type that should give better longevity with dye inks, your old Classic range had that property. That black dye inks give higher Dmax on gloss and matte papers is no news. I presume that GFS is no dog either with a black dye and I expect a higher Dmax from that paper too with black dye. With the same pigment ink used the Dmax is equal to the Dmax of the Gold Fibre Silk (your words). That and the Dmin = L value of the Mono Silk paper white a lower number than that of the IGFS (Ilford site's Lab numbers) should make it clear that the resulting dynamic range is actually shorter than the dynamic range of IGFS. I welcome any new quality paper but this thread was on what makes an inkjet paper a Mono = B&W quality and I do not think this question is answered yet, other than a cooler white point which could refer to the old Agfa Brovira quality etc. However similar cooler white point inkjet fibre papers exist already without that mono label.

One sample of the Ilford sample book I brought back from the Photokina is a 190gsm textured, 100% cotton paper which has the following name printed on it: Smooth Fine Art. The texture is actually coarser than 220gsm Fine Art Textured. I made a mistake on the name in my first message but it is that sample I had in mind. There is also a 310gsm Smooth Fine Art Matt sample in that book that is really smooth. I think the first sample mentioned has a wrong imprint on it or the name is plain wrong.

No part of the LL staff so I rather receive some A4 sheets of the Ilford papers I did not measure so far for my SpectrumViz application. The Mono Silk and several other ones from the Galerie Prestige, Premium and all the samples of the OmniJet range. Or sample books that have all the qualities bundled if it is too much asked.

Thanks for your comments. I wanted to get back to you first of all with regards to your points about dye inks. It's true that we do not recommend dye ink for archival prints and they do not match good (i.e. well developed) b&w prints in archival stability. However, there have been some very positive developments recently for porous media, for example, with the latest dye sets of Epson and Canon. In fact Canon launched the latest Pro-100 A3+ printer at photokina, which is a dye based printer and created a lot of interest. We've found that these are very respectable and match or surpass colour negative paper stability, particularly in framed display. We've made these projections from accelerated tests except for colour negative paper, which has been around long enough for us to know.

We expect the latest inkjet dye sets to be better in dark stability than colour negative paper that has been used by the most respectable artists. Also, dye transfer is a dye process that has very good archival and artistic reputation. If framed or protected, or when kept in an archive, it's probable that the latest inkjet dyes could rival those older technologies.

Gold Fibre Silk has been optimised for pigment print only and does not come close to producing the deep blacks of Gold Mono Silk. The benefit of black dye vs black pigment is only achieved either with swelling layers as you rightly note above, or with very clear receiving layers optimised for this type of printing, which are present in Gold Mono Silk. Gold Mono Silk is particularly suited to printing with dye based inks and does provide Dmax with dye based inks (up to 2.3). Of course, Dmax or L* on full black depends on the printer and print mode used.

Gold Mono Silk is designed to remind photographers of a silver halide b&w fibre paper, and matches its silver halide predecessor in paper tint (L*, a*, b*) as well as surface structure as closely as possible.

In this case, the term 'dynamic range' is perhaps not the best choice for what we wanted to say. There is no perfect equivalent between using 'photographic’ terms and 'paper’ terms. The photographic term 'Dmin' is not exactly equivalent to the L* value of a paper. And neither Dmin nor L* represent perfectly the visual impression of whiteness. The blue/yellow component of the tint has a particular influence on whiteness/brightness. This is not only true for the content of OBA but even if the paper is shaded blue. A representation of whiteness/brightness that includes the component of blue and OBA is the CIE whiteness (international standard ISO 11475). This representation of whiteness is most popular in the US and in the paper industry, but not so common in the photographic industry.

The high CIE whiteness of Mono Silk has led to the statement of 'low Dmin', a way to phrase this fact in photographic terms, but what it really means is high perceived brightness, similar to modern silver halide b&w papers.

As you rightly point out, whether Gold Mono Silk 'cuts any wood' is the all-important factor and we're looking forward to receiving feedback from you and other photographers once you've had chance to test it.

Finally, with regards to your point about the ‘Smooth’ naming, this is actually intended to have no technical meaning and is our way of describing products that use nanoporous layers. We’re actually in the process of removing this naming from the affected products to streamline our naming structure, so I’m pleased that it sounds as though this should be helpful.

Thanks for your comments. I wanted to get back to you first of all with regards to your points about dye inks. It's true that we do not recommend dye ink for archival prints and they do not match good (i.e. well developed) b&w prints in archival stability. However, there have been some very positive developments recently for porous media, for example, with the latest dye sets of Epson and Canon. In fact Canon launched the latest Pro-100 A3+ printer at photokina, which is a dye based printer and created a lot of interest. We've found that these are very respectable and match or surpass colour negative paper stability, particularly in framed display. We've made these projections from accelerated tests except for colour negative paper, which has been around long enough for us to know.

We expect the latest inkjet dye sets to be better in dark stability than colour negative paper that has been used by the most respectable artists. Also, dye transfer is a dye process that has very good archival and artistic reputation. If framed or protected, or when kept in an archive, it's probable that the latest inkjet dyes could rival those older technologies.

Gold Fibre Silk has been optimised for pigment print only and does not come close to producing the deep blacks of Gold Mono Silk. The benefit of black dye vs black pigment is only achieved either with swelling layers as you rightly note above, or with very clear receiving layers optimised for this type of printing, which are present in Gold Mono Silk. Gold Mono Silk is particularly suited to printing with dye based inks and does provide Dmax with dye based inks (up to 2.3). Of course, Dmax or L* on full black depends on the printer and print mode used.

Jenny, I have not seen a reference or more emphasis to the use of dye inks in the Ilford docs for this paper. There are several Fiber/Baryta papers that achieve a Dmax 2.3 with pigment inks. Ilford should be careful to lock this paper to dye ink use. It should survive tests like Aardenburg-Imaging does, an institute I highly recommend if you like to have independent testing for this paper. The optical brightening agent will then also be tested on its stability in time. Chromogenic color paper prints are way behind good color pigment inkjet prints in fade resistance even if they are made with Fuji Crystal paper. B&W pigment inkjet prints (carbon pigment) are more stable than color pigment inkjet prints but are probably not as stable as silver halide B&W prints, properly developed. That is today's ranking.

My impression was that the more stable dye inks; Epson Claria, HP Vivera Dye, Canon Dye ink as used for its dry minilab too, depend on dedicated papers for those inks. Aardenburg tested some combinations like that and compared to chromogenic color prints they made a good impression. There are indications that custom made B&W inksets based on the black dye only used in customised B&W printers improve on that result. See Paul Roark's work with Claria/Noritsu black dye. I can imagine that your Gold Mono Silk has some properties of the papers that Epson etc recommend for use with their inks. It would be interesting to let Paul Roark make prints with his set up on Gold Mono Silk and then test them at Aardenburg. For general use most dye ink printers are limited to 4 or 6 ink channels and will use the driver's color mode in B&W photo printing. That influences the printer's B&W output stability (hard to keep the same neutrality/color over the entire tone range in time), makes "metamerism" more prone and lowers the fade resistance results as the weakest color goes first and there are issues with reactive processes when more dye inks mix. The choice then is one of the few dye printers that have an improved B&W mode (and more monochrome dye inks), or use a Black Only driver setting (image quality issues) or go Paul Roark's route.

Quote

Gold Mono Silk is designed to remind photographers of a silver halide b&w fibre paper, and matches its silver halide predecessor in paper tint (L*, a*, b*) as well as surface structure as closely as possible.

In this case, the term 'dynamic range' is perhaps not the best choice for what we wanted to say. There is no perfect equivalent between using 'photographic’ terms and 'paper’ terms. The photographic term 'Dmin' is not exactly equivalent to the L* value of a paper. And neither Dmin nor L* represent perfectly the visual impression of whiteness. The blue/yellow component of the tint has a particular influence on whiteness/brightness. This is not only true for the content of OBA but even if the paper is shaded blue. A representation of whiteness/brightness that includes the component of blue and OBA is the CIE whiteness (international standard ISO 11475). This representation of whiteness is most popular in the US and in the paper industry, but not so common in the photographic industry.

The high CIE whiteness of Mono Silk has led to the statement of 'low Dmin', a way to phrase this fact in photographic terms, but what it really means is high perceived brightness, similar to modern silver halide b&w papers.

"but not so common in the photographic industry" For a good reason. True a cooler paper gives that perceptual illusion of being more white, actually more bright. There is even a Brightness value as measured in the graphic industry with only blue light reflection at 457 NM. Your ISO 11475 goes halfway; it measures the total white reflection but gives the blue region more value with the CIE D65 daylight illumination etc. OBAs will contribute more to that result. But it is unusual illumination for photo exhibitions and requires more lumen lighting to be appreciated (Kruithof curve), is more destructible on the dyes (ink and OBA) and all that considered also hard to achieve in combination with glass framed prints. To state it boldly that ISO 11475 measurement has no relation to fine B&W print practice but is fine for outdoor signs. I would surprise me if your ICC print profiles for this paper will be made to 6500 K, if so prepare your staff on complaints that color is off, no neutral B&W possible, as the users' viewing lights etc are in (your) best case 5000K but more and more shifting to warmer Kelvin grades like 4000K. Galleries, musea more often using 3000K halogens for lighting. My Lab values in SpectrumViz are Illumination D50 results of a tungsten lit spectrometer, still measuring OBA activity but not exaggerating it with B&W photography in mind, I think your Lab quotes are a better standard to go by for the whiteness than what you propose here.

I see at least three separate issues in your response that need to be unpacked: (1) DMax, (2) perception of neutrality, and (3) longevity. Each needs to be evaluated for this paper using bespoke methods and test prints made with the combination of printers and inks for which Ilford designed the paper.

I see at least three separate issues in your response that need to be unpacked: (1) DMax, (2) perception of neutrality, and (3) longevity. Each needs to be evaluated for this paper using bespoke methods and test prints made with the combination of printers and inks for which Ilford designed the paper.

Mark,

Well I thought it was long enough for today.

Nowhere in the Ilford documents I see a summary of the inkjet printers they have in mind, to me they all fit right now. It is when I ask what makes the difference to call it Mono that brings forth the special cases; dye inks, lighting. I see more messages these days that dye inks are back and better, almost as good as pigment in longevity. I never declared them dead and know very well what their advantages are for straight gloss and matte printing without the need of separate blacks + the promise of even wider gamuts + less printer maintenance needed. I go by what Mark McCormick commented in one of the threads, he is the one who can test the claims and if half of what is said is true I will follow.

No, no, don't get me wrong - I wasn't suggesting that YOU try to unpack them in a forum thread response. Not doable. I was simply commenting on the need for pointed research into the three strands of considerations that your post evoked in my mind.

There is already an excellent surface for monochrome pigment prints called Harmon Baryta. If Ilford is looking for that they shouldn't have sold the line to Hahnemuhle. It is bright enough but with good fade test results, great sharpness, and fantastic d-max.

What someone should try to do is come up with a way to produce these rolls with a lot less curl. That is the problem we face, not dmax, print color, or white point. Then you would sell this stuff like crazy.

There is already an excellent surface for monochrome pigment prints called Harmon Baryta. If Ilford is looking for that they shouldn't have sold the line to Hahnemuhle. It is bright enough but with good fade test results, great sharpness, and fantastic d-max.

What someone should try to do is come up with a way to produce these rolls with a lot less curl. That is the problem we face, not dmax, print color, or white point. Then you would sell this stuff like crazy.

Or in larger sheets. I buy several Canson and Hanhemuhle papers, and Museo Silver Rag in 24 x 36 inch sheets, but the largest Harman Baryta sheets I can get are 17 x 25 inches.